While I'm not sure mime-types are necessary (they're more verbose than may
be required), this actually allows an author to declare that a certain
image contains several sub-types that may not be supported by the browser.
Let's say for example that JPEG arithmetic coding was supported by some
browsers and JPEG hierarchical coding was supported by others, with some
overlap in their support.
format("image.jpeg", "hierarchical", "arithmetic") would allow an author to
define an image that contains both sub-types, without the need to define
all possible permutations in the spec.
OTOH, I'm not sure such a scenario is a realistic future scenario, and it
might be easier to extend the syntax in the future, if & when that need
arises.
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 16:16 +0000, Jake Archibald wrote:
> > The proposed system would allow for, eg, format('webp-progressive'),
> > format('jpeg-smellovision').
>
> How about, format('image/jpeg', 'smellovision') ?
>
> --
> Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
> Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
>
>
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 09:08:23 UTC